Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current update on malignant epithelial ovarian tumors

  • Special Section: Ovarian Cancer
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) represents the most frequently occurring gynecological malignancy, accounting for more than 70% of ovarian cancer deaths. Preoperative imaging plays an important role in assessing the extent of disease and guides the next step in surgical decision-making and operative planning. In this article, we will review the multimodality imaging features of various subtypes of EOC. We will also discuss the role of imaging in the staging, management, and surveillance of EOC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Liu D, Zhang L, Indima N, Peng K, Li Q, Hua T, Tang G (2017) CT and MRI findings of type I and type II epithelial ovarian cancer. European Journal of Radiology 90:225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68 (6):394–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Signorelli M, Guerra L, Pirovano C, Crivellaro C, Fruscio R, Buda A, Cuzzucrea M, Elisei F, Ceppi L, Messa C (2013) Detection of nodal metastases by 18F-FDG PET/CT in apparent early stage ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 131 (2):395–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.08.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eoh KJ, Park HS, Park JS, Lee ST, Han J, Lee JY, Kim SW, Kim S, Kim YT, Nam EJ (2017) Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of BRCA1/2 Pathologic Mutation, Variants of Unknown Significance, or Wild Type Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients. Cancer Res Treat 49 (2):408–415. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2016.135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kang SK, Reinhold C, Atri M, Benson CB, Bhosale PR, Jhingran A, Lakhman Y, Maturen KE, Nicola R, Pandharipande PV, Salazar GM, Shipp TD, Simpson L, Small W, Jr., Sussman BL, Uyeda JW, Wall DJ, Whitcomb BP, Zelop CM, Glanc P (2018) ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) Staging and Follow-Up of Ovarian Cancer. Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 15 (5s):S198–S207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.03.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Orr B, Edwards RP (2018) Diagnosis and Treatment of Ovarian Cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 32 (6):943–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hoc.2018.07.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang F, Wang Y, Zhou Y, Liu C, Xie L, Zhou Z, Liang D, Shen Y, Yao Z, Liu J (2017) Comparison between types I and II epithelial ovarian cancer using histogram analysis of monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched-exponential diffusion models. J Magn Reson Imaging 46 (6):1797–1809. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Au KK, Josahkian JA, Francis JA, Squire JA, Koti M (2015) Current state of biomarkers in ovarian cancer prognosis. Future Oncol 11 (23):3187–3195. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon.15.251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Elsherif S, Javadi S, Viswanathan C, Faria S, Bhosale P (2019) Low-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: what a radiologist should know. Br J Radiol 92 (1095):20180571. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180571

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Elsherif SB, Faria SC, Lall C, Iyer R, Bhosale PR (2019) Ovarian Cancer Genetics and Implications for Imaging and Therapy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 43 (6):835–845. https://doi.org/10.1097/rct.0000000000000932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma: the Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network (2011). Nature 474 (7353):609. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10166

  12. Della Pepa C, Tonini G, Santini D, Losito S, Pisano C, Di Napoli M, Cecere SC, Gargiulo P, Pignata S (2015) Low Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma: from the molecular characterization to the best therapeutic strategy. Cancer Treat Rev 41 (2):136–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.12.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mangili G, Bergamini A, Taccagni G, Gentile C, Panina P, Vigano P, Candiani M (2012) Unraveling the two entities of endometrioid ovarian cancer: a single center clinical experience. Gynecol Oncol 126 (3):403–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.05.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones S, Wang TL, Shih Ie M, Mao TL, Nakayama K, Roden R, Glas R, Slamon D, Diaz LA, Jr., Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW, Velculescu VE, Papadopoulos N (2010) Frequent mutations of chromatin remodeling gene ARID1A in ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Science 330 (6001):228–231. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Frumovitz M, Schmeler KM, Malpica A, Sood AK, Gershenson DM (2010) Unmasking the complexities of mucinous ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 117 (3):491–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.02.010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Marko J, Marko KI, Pachigolla SL, Crothers BA, Mattu R, Wolfman DJ (2019) Mucinous Neoplasms of the Ovary: Radiologic–Pathologic Correlation. Radiographics 39 (4):982–997. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rojas V, Hirshfield KM, Ganesan S, Rodriguez-Rodriguez L (2016) Molecular Characterization of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment. Int J Mol Sci 17 (12):2113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17122113

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Romero I, Sun CC, Wong KK, Bast RC, Jr., Gershenson DM (2013) Low-grade serous carcinoma: new concepts and emerging therapies. Gynecol Oncol 130 (3):660–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Martins FC, Santiago I, Trinh A, Xian J, Guo A, Sayal K, Jimenez-Linan M, Deen S, Driver K, Mack M, Aslop J, Pharoah PD, Markowetz F, Brenton JD (2014) Combined image and genomic analysis of high-grade serous ovarian cancer reveals PTEN loss as a common driver event and prognostic classifier. Genome Biol 15 (12):526. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0526-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Eoh KJ, Kim HM, Lee JY, Kim S, Kim SW, Kim YT, Nam EJ (2020) Mutation landscape of germline and somatic BRCA1/2 in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer 20 (1):204. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-6693-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Javadi S, Ganeshan DM, Qayyum A, Iyer RB, Bhosale P (2016) Ovarian Cancer, the Revised FIGO Staging System, and the Role of Imaging. Am J Roentgenol 206 (6):1351–1360. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Previs RA, Sood AK, Mills GB, Westin SN (2016) The rise of genomic profiling in ovarian cancer. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 16 (12):1337–1351. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2016.1259069

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang W, Wang L, Xin Z (2018) Combination of serum CA19-9 and CA125 levels and contrast-enhanced ultrasound parametric data facilitates to differentiate ovarian serous carcinoma from ovarian malignant epithelial cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 97 (16):e0358. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000010358

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Nougaret S, Lakhman Y, Molinari N, Feier D, Scelzo C, Vargas HA, Sosa RE, Hricak H, Soslow RA, Grisham RN, Sala E (2018) CT Features of Ovarian Tumors: Defining Key Differences Between Serous Borderline Tumors and Low-Grade Serous Carcinomas. Am J Roentgenol 210 (4):918–926. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ganeshan D, Bhosale P, Wei W, Ramalingam P, Mudasiru-Dawodu E, Gershenson D, Sun C, Iyer R (2016) Increase in post-therapy tumor calcification on CT scan is not an indicator of response to therapy in low-grade serous ovarian cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41 (8):1589–1595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0701-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tanaka YO, Okada S, Satoh T, Matsumoto K, Oki A, Saida T, Yoshikawa H, Minami M (2016) Differentiation of epithelial ovarian cancer subtypes by use of imaging and clinical data: a detailed analysis. Cancer Imaging 16:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-016-0061-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Vargas HA, Huang EP, Lakhman Y, Ippolito JE, Bhosale P, Mellnick V, Shinagare AB, Anello M, Kirby J, Fevrier-Sullivan B, Freymann J, Jaffe CC, Sala E (2017) Radiogenomics of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: Multireader Multi-Institutional Study from the Cancer Genome Atlas Ovarian Cancer Imaging Research Group. Radiology 285 (2):482–492. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nougaret S, Lakhman Y, Gonen M, Goldman DA, Micco M, D'Anastasi M, Johnson SA, Juluru K, Arnold AG, Sosa RE, Soslow RA, Vargas HA, Hricak H, Kauff ND, Sala E (2017) High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: Associations between BRCA Mutation Status, CT Imaging Phenotypes, and Clinical Outcomes. Radiology 285 (2):472–481. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lindgren A, Anttila M, Arponen O, Rautiainen S, Könönen M, Vanninen R, Sallinen H (2019) Prognostic value of preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Radiol 115:66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.03.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Moro F, Magoga G, Pasciuto T, Mascilini F, Moruzzi MC, Fischerova D, Savelli L, Giunchi S, Mancari R, Franchi D, Czekierdowski A, Froyman W, Verri D, Epstein E, Chiappa V, Guerriero S, Zannoni GF, Timmerman D, Scambia G, Valentin L, Testa AC (2018) Imaging in gynecological disease (13): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of endometrioid ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 52 (4):535–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19026

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stein EB, Wasnik AP, Sciallis AP, Kamaya A, Maturen KE (2017) MR Imaging-Pathologic Correlation in Ovarian Cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 25 (3):545–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2017.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pozzati F, Moro F, Pasciuto T, Gallo C, Ciccarone F, Franchi D, Mancari R, Giunchi S, Timmerman D, Landolfo C, Epstein E, Chiappa V, Fischerova D, Fruscio R, Zannoni GF, Valentin L, Scambia G, Testa AC (2018) Imaging in gynecological disease (14): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 52 (6):792–800. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Thomsen LH, Schnack TH, Buchardi K, Hummelshoj L, Missmer SA, Forman A, Blaakaer J (2017) Risk factors of epithelial ovarian carcinomas among women with endometriosis: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 96 (6):761–778. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Castellani F, Nganga EC, Dumas L, Banerjee S, Rockall AG (2019) Imaging in the pre-operative staging of ovarian cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 44 (2):685–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1779-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tanase Y, Kawaguchi R, Takahama J, Kobayashi H (2018) Factors that Differentiate between Endometriosis-associated Ovarian Cancer and Benign Ovarian Endometriosis with Mural Nodules. Magn Reson Med Sci 17 (3):231–237. https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2016-0149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Liu T, Sumida D, Wada T, Maehana T, Yamawaki A, Sugimoto S, Kawahara N, Yoshimoto C, Kobayashi H (2019) A diagnostic challenge of seromucinous borderline tumor: A case report. Medicine (Baltimore) 98 (22):e15707. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000015707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kato H, Hatano Y, Makino H, Furui T, Morishige KI, Matsuo M (2016) Clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: comparison of MR findings of histological subtypes. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41 (12):2476–2483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0777-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ma FH, Qiang JW, Zhang GF, Li HM, Cai SQ, Rao YM (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging for distinguishing ovarian clear cell carcinoma from high-grade serous carcinoma. J Ovarian Res 9 (1):40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-016-0251-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Morioka S, Kawaguchi R, Yamada Y, Iwai K, Yoshimoto C, Kobayashi H (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging findings for discriminating clear cell carcinoma and endometrioid carcinoma of the ovary. J Ovarian Res 12 (1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-019-0497-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Moro F, Zannoni GF, Arciuolo D, Pasciuto T, Amoroso S, Mascilini F, Mainenti S, Scambia G, Testa AC (2017) Imaging in gynecological disease (11): clinical and ultrasound features of mucinous ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 50 (2):261–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shetty M (2019) Imaging and Differential Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 40 (4):302–318. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2019.04.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Seidman JD, Kurman RJ, Ronnett BM (2003) Primary and metastatic mucinous adenocarcinomas in the ovaries: incidence in routine practice with a new approach to improve intraoperative diagnosis. Am J Surg Pathol 27 (7):985–993. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-200307000-00014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Weinberger V, Minář L, Felsinger M, Ovesná P, Bednaříková M, Číhalová M, Jandáková E, Hausnerová J, Chaloupková B, Zikán M (2018) Brenner tumor of the ovary - ultrasound features and clinical management of a rare ovarian tumor mimicking ovarian cancer. Ginekol Pol 89 (7):357–363. https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2018.0061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Atri M, Alabousi A, Reinhold C, Akin EA, Benson CB, Bhosale PR, Kang SK, Lakhman Y, Nicola R, Pandharipande PV, Patel MD, Salazar GM, Shipp TD, Simpson L, Sussman BL, Uyeda JW, Wall DJ, Whitcomb BP, Zelop CM, Glanc P (2019) ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) Clinically Suspected Adnexal Mass, No Acute Symptoms. Journal of the American College of Radiology 16 (5s):S77–S93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2019.02.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Zacharakis D, Thomakos N, Biliatis I, Rodolakis A, Simou M, Daskalakis G, Bamias A, Antsaklis A (2013) Ultrasonographic markers and preoperative CA-125 to distinguish between borderline ovarian tumors and stage I ovarian cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92 (3):285–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12046

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Froyman W, Timmerman D (2019) Methods of Assessing Ovarian Masses: International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Approach. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 46 (4):625–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2019.07.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Abramowicz JS, Timmerman D (2017) Ovarian mass-differentiating benign from malignant: the value of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis ultrasound rules. Am J Obstet Gynecol 217 (6):652–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, Ghaem-Maghami S, Bourne T, Timmerman D, Van Calster B (2014) Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 20 (3):449–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM, Froyman W, Benacerraf BR, Bennett GL, Bourne T, Brown DL, Coleman BG, Frates MC, Goldstein SR, Hamper UM, Horrow MM, Hernanz-Schulman M, Reinhold C, Rose SL, Whitcomb BP, Wolfman WL, Glanc P (2020) O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System: A Consensus Guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee. Radiology 294 (1):168–185. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019191150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Basha MAA, Metwally MI, Gamil SA, Khater HM, Aly SA, El Sammak AA, Zaitoun MMA, Khattab EM, Azmy TM, Alayouty NA, Mohey N, Almassry HN, Yousef HY, Ibrahim SA, Mohamed EA, Mohamed AEM, Afifi AHM, Harb OA, Algazzar HY (2020) Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07143-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Pereira PN, Sarian LO, Yoshida A, Araújo KG, Barros RH, Baião AC, Parente DB, Derchain S (2018) Accuracy of the ADNEX MR scoring system based on a simplified MRI protocol for the assessment of adnexal masses. Diagn Interv Radiol 24 (2):63

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Ruiz M, Labauge P, Louboutin A, Limot O, Fauconnier A, Huchon C (2016) External validation of the MR imaging scoring system for the management of adnexal masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 205:115–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lu J, Pi S, Ma FH, Zhao SH, Li HM, Cai SL, Qiang JW (2019) Value of normalized apparent diffusion coefficients in differentiating between borderline and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. Eur J Radiol 118:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.06.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhang G, Yao W, Sun T, Liu X, Zhang P, Jin J, Bai Y, Hua K, Zhang H (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging in categorization of ovarian epithelial cancer and survival analysis with focus on apparent diffusion coefficient value: correlation with Ki-67 expression and serum cancer antigen-125 level. J Ovarian Res 12 (1):59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-019-0534-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Moro F, Pasciuto T, Djokovic D, Di Legge A, Granato V, Moruzzi MC, Mancari R, Zannoni GF, Fischerova D, Franchi D, Scambia G, Testa AC (2019) Role of CA125/CEA ratio and ultrasound parameters in identifying metastases to the ovaries in patients with multilocular and multilocular-solid ovarian masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 53 (1):116–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Xu Y, Yang J, Zhang Z, Zhang G (2015) MRI for discriminating metastatic ovarian tumors from primary epithelial ovarian cancers. J Ovarian Res 8:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-015-0188-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Elsherif SB, Zheng S, Ganeshan D, Iyer R, Wei W, Bhosale PR (2020) Does dual-energy CT differentiate benign and malignant ovarian tumours? Clin Radiol 75 (8):606–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2020.03.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Suidan RS, Ramirez PT, Sarasohn DM, Teitcher JB, Iyer RB, Zhou Q, Iasonos A, Denesopolis J, Zivanovic O, Long Roche KC, Sonoda Y, Coleman RL, Abu-Rustum NR, Hricak H, Chi DS (2017) A multicenter assessment of the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and CA-125 to predict gross residual disease at primary debulking for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 145 (1):27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.02.020

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Rizzo S, Del Grande M, Manganaro L, Papadia A, Del Grande F (2020) Imaging before cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 30 (1):133–138. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hynninen J, Laasik M, Vallius T, Kemppainen J, Grönroos S, Virtanen J, Casado J, Hautaniemi S, Grenman S, Seppänen M, Auranen A (2018) Clinical Value of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Response Evaluation after Primary Treatment of Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 30 (8):507–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2018.04.007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Sapiezynski J, Taratula O, Rodriguez-Rodriguez L, Minko T (2016) Precision targeted therapy of ovarian cancer. J Control Release 243:250–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.10.014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Nasser S, Lazaridis A, Evangelou M, Jones B, Nixon K, Kyrgiou M, Gabra H, Rockall A, Fotopoulou C (2016) Correlation of pre-operative CT findings with surgical & histological tumor dissemination patterns at cytoreduction for primary advanced and relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer: A retrospective evaluation. Gynecol Oncol 143 (2):264–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.08.322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Fuso L, Ferrero A, Vietti E, Petracchini M, Mineccia M, Villa M, Menato G (2019) Development of a preoperative computed tomography score for the management of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 29 (3):599–604. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2018-000054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Sahdev A (2016) CT in ovarian cancer staging: how to review and report with emphasis on abdominal and pelvic disease for surgical planning. Cancer Imaging 16 (1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-016-0076-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Rutten MJ, van de Vrie R, Bruining A, Spijkerboer AM, Mol BW, Kenter GG, Buist MR (2015) Predicting surgical outcome in patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV ovarian cancer using computed tomography: a systematic review of prediction models. Int J Gynecol Cancer 25 (3):407–415. https://doi.org/10.1097/igc.0000000000000368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Qin L, Huang H, Chen M, Liang Y, Wang H (2018) Clinical study of a CT evaluation model combined with serum CA125 in predicting the treatment of newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. J Ovarian Res 11 (1):49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-018-0422-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Lindgren A, Anttila M, Rautiainen S, Arponen O, Kivelä A, Mäkinen P, Härmä K, Hämäläinen K, Kosma VM, Ylä-Herttuala S, Vanninen R, Sallinen H (2017) Primary and metastatic ovarian cancer: Characterization by 3.0 T diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 27 (9):4002–4012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4786-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lindgren A, Anttila M, Rautiainen S, Arponen O, Hämäläinen K, Könönen M, Vanninen R, Sallinen H (2019) Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion parameters in ovarian cancer: Good accuracy in identifying high HIF-1α expression. PLoS ONE 14 (8):e0221340. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Hynninen J, Kemppainen J, Lavonius M, Virtanen J, Matomäki J, Oksa S, Carpén O, Grénman S, Seppänen M, Auranen A (2013) A prospective comparison of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced CT for pretreatment imaging of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 131 (2):389–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.08.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Lopez-Lopez V, Cascales-Campos PA, Gil J, Frutos L, Andrade RJ, Fuster-Quiñonero M, Feliciangeli E, Gil E, Parrilla P (2016) Use of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients diagnosed with peritoneal carcinomatosis of ovarian origin, candidates to cytoreduction and hipec. A pending issue. Eur J Radiol 85 (10):1824–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.08.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Liu S, Feng Z, Wen H, Jiang Z, Pan H, Deng Y, Zhang L, Ju X, Chen X, Wu X (2018) F-FDG PET/CT can predict chemosensitivity and proliferation of epithelial ovarian cancer via SUVmax value. Japanese journal of radiology 36 (9):544–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-018-0755-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Vallius T, Hynninen J, Kemppainen J, Alves V, Auranen K, Matomäki J, Oksa S, Virtanen J, Grénman S, Auranen A, Seppänen M (2018) (18)F-FDG-PET/CT based total metabolic tumor volume change during neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts outcome in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45 (7):1224–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3961-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Chung HH, Lee M, Kim HS, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, Cheon GJ (2017) Prognostic implication of the metastatic lesion-to-ovarian cancer standardised uptake value ratio in advanced serous epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur Radiol 27 (11):4510–4515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4883-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Paik ES, Kim TJ, Lee YY, Choi CH, Lee JW, Kim BG, Bae DS (2016) Comparison of survival outcomes after recurrence detected by cancer antigen 125 elevation versus imaging study in epithelial ovarian cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 27 (5):e46. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2016.27.e46

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Manganaro L, Gigli S, Antonelli A, Saldari M, Tomao F, Marchetti C, Anastasi E, Laghi A (2019) Imaging strategy in recurrent ovarian cancer: a practical review. Abdom Radiol (NY) 44 (3):1091–1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1677-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Guo N, Peng Z (2017) Does serum CA125 have clinical value for follow-up monitoring of postoperative patients with epithelial ovarian cancer? Results of a 12-year study. J Ovarian Res 10 (1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-017-0310-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Yang WL, Lu Z, Bast RC, Jr. (2017) The role of biomarkers in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 17 (6):577–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2017.1326820

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Hameeduddin A, Sahdev A (2015) Diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in assessing response and recurrent disease in gynaecological malignancies. Cancer Imaging 15 (1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-015-0037-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Gu P, Pan LL, Wu SQ, Sun L, Huang G (2009) CA 125, PET alone, PET-CT, CT and MRI in diagnosing recurrent ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology 71 (1):164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.02.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Lee YJ, Kim YM, Jung PS, Lee JJ, Kim JK, Kim YT, Nam JH (2018) Diagnostic value of integrated 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: accuracy of patient selection for secondary cytoreduction in 134 patients. J Gynecol Oncol 29 (3):e36. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e36

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Kim CY, Jeong SY, Chong GO, Son SH, Jung JH, Kim DH, Lee SW, Ahn BC, Lee J (2015) Quantitative metabolic parameters measured on F-18 FDG PET/CT predict survival after relapse in patients with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 136 (3):498–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.12.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M, Suntharalingam S, Milk I, Kinner S, Heubner A, Forsting M, Lauenstein T, Ruhlmann V, Umutlu L (2015) Implementation of FAST-PET/MRI for whole-body staging of female patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies: A comparison to PET/CT. European Journal of Radiology 84 (11):2097–2102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.08.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Wang S, Liu Z, Rong Y, Zhou B, Bai Y, Wei W, Wei W, Wang M, Guo Y, Tian J (2019) Deep learning provides a new computed tomography-based prognostic biomarker for recurrence prediction in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Radiother Oncol 132:171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2018.10.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Qiu Y, Tan M, McMeekin S, Thai T, Ding K, Moore K, Liu H, Zheng B (2016) Early prediction of clinical benefit of treating ovarian cancer using quantitative CT image feature analysis. Acta Radiol 57 (9):1149–1155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185115620947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Zhang H, Mao Y, Chen X, Wu G, Liu X, Zhang P, Bai Y, Lu P, Yao W, Wang Y, Yu J, Zhang G (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging radiomics in categorizing ovarian masses and predicting clinical outcome: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol 29 (7):3358–3371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06124-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Department of Radiology, The University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA

    Sherif B. Elsherif & Chandana Lall

  2. The Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Priya R. Bhosale & Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan

  3. The Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Christine O. Menias

  4. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA

    Malak Itani

  5. The Department of Medical and Surgical Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Kristina A. Butler

  6. Department of Radiology, UF College of Medicine-Jacksonville, 2nd Floor, Clinical Center, 655 West 8th Street, C90, Jacksonville, FL, 33209, USA

    Sherif B. Elsherif

Authors
  1. Sherif B. Elsherif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Priya R. Bhosale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chandana Lall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christine O. Menias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Malak Itani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kristina A. Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sherif B. Elsherif.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elsherif, S.B., Bhosale, P.R., Lall, C. et al. Current update on malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. Abdom Radiol 46, 2264–2280 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03081-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03081-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation